Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Time <br /> <br />Model <br />part 2 <br /> <br />Composite <br />11 S/ae <br /> <br />Composite <br />S/ae <br /> <br />I,M <br /> <br />Water <br /> <br />12 <br /> <br />Up to this point, we have been describing this analysis as though it had no <br />time frames. It docs, in fact, have the capacity to easily analyze yearly in. <br />formation. It is at this point that a check is made for additional yearly data. <br />If it is there, the analysis is automatically rcrun for as many years as neces- <br />sary. Here again, the main problem is the cxistence of the information in <br />a usable form. <br />This btings us to the second pan of the model. The results in this section <br />will develop a group of average unit values and total values which relate to <br />dry land and irrigated crops fot each county. There will no longer be a crop <br />identification. The individual crops will be grouped into a composite crop <br />based upon their respective acreages from the first segment. This is done so <br />that we can synthesize statements of the material and financial impacts on <br />Kansas agriculture from the totality of lands irrigated. <br />The results from the first part of the analysis arc retained and used as <br />independent variables to the second part. At this time, we recall the acreages <br />allocated to irrigated crops by crop type. Each of the acreage values is <br />multiplied by its respective dollars per acre yield differential factor. The <br />three numbers are added and their sum is divided by the total amount of <br />acres irrigated for the crops being examined. The resulting number is the <br />expected average increase in gross revenues per acre attributable to irrigation. <br />A similar factor is determined for dryland crops. For each dry land crop <br />the product of yield, acres harvested, and the price per bushel is calculated. <br />The summation of these products is divided by the number of dry land acres <br />upon which the crops were grown. The result estimates the average dollar <br />earnings from an acre of dtyland agriculture. <br />When viewing the last two factors developed, it can be seen that it is <br />possible to prepare an estimare of the total income earned from the dry- <br />land component of fanning. This component includes that part of earnings <br />from ittigated lands which would have occurred had they been farmed with <br />dryland techniques. Also, we can determine the total increase in income <br />attributable to irrigation. <br />Two types of information are needed to develop these total numbers. <br />They arc the total actes irrigated and the total acres harvestcd for each <br />county. These data are entered into the second pan of the model as inde- <br />pendent variables. A check is made of total acreS irrigated in pan two with <br />respect to the sum of the acres irrigated from part one. The purpose of this <br />check is to maintain continuity. It would not be desirable for the model to <br />analyze irrigated actes in part one and then claim those acres do not exist in <br />part two. <br />The figures tepresenting the rate of water use per acte by crop from pan <br />one, are now multiplied by their respective irrigated acreages. The products <br />